Talk:Affordable Care Act: Difference between revisions
Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
* {{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/challenges-have-dogged-obamas-health-plan-since-2010/2013/11/02/453fba42-426b-11e3-a624-41d661b0bb78_story.html|title=HealthCare.gov: How political fear was pitted against technical needs|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=November 2, 2013|first1=Amy|last1=Goldstein|first2=Juliet|last2=Eilperin}} |
* {{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/challenges-have-dogged-obamas-health-plan-since-2010/2013/11/02/453fba42-426b-11e3-a624-41d661b0bb78_story.html|title=HealthCare.gov: How political fear was pitted against technical needs|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=November 2, 2013|first1=Amy|last1=Goldstein|first2=Juliet|last2=Eilperin}} |
||
--[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 05:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
--[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 05:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
Stumbled across? But up until last December you edited this page over 2000 times as if it was a full time job. Then proudly proclaimed you were finished, coincidently as of the end of 2013. |
|||
== Jonathan Gruber's "Stupid Americans" controversy == |
== Jonathan Gruber's "Stupid Americans" controversy == |
Revision as of 01:50, 15 November 2014
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Affordable Care Act article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Affordable Care Act has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 20, 2013. (Reviewed version). |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Affordable Care Act. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Affordable Care Act at the Reference desk. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Affordable Care Act received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
A news item involving Affordable Care Act was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 22 March 2010. |
A news item involving Affordable Care Act was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 28 June 2012. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was copied or moved into Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Affordable Care Act article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Legislative repeal and revision attempts
Hi! I work on a lot of articles about legislation and recently noted the 50th vote to repeal or revise the ACA that was taken in the House. (See ABC News). There are three more bills related to revising portions of the ACA being voted on under a suspension of the rules on the House floor today. (See The Hill). The section in this article on "repeal efforts" is fairly short, considering there have been so many. There also isn't a section (that I could find) addressing attempts to modify the ACA without repealing it entirely.
So, is there any interest in creating a separate article on repeal and revision attempts (and revision successes)? What about a section within this article (even if it is a simple list linking to articles about bills that attempted or succeeded in modifications)? If not, what is the community's criteria for including associated legislation in this article?
For example, the following bills might be included:
- An act to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 45)
- Equitable Access to Care and Health Act (H.R. 1814; 113th Congress) - this is on the floor today
- Authority for Mandate Delay Act (H.R. 2667; 113th Congress)
- Fairness for American Families Act
- Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (H.J.Res 59) - the failure to pass this bill (or other appropriations) cause the shutdown - I think this one is already mentioned in the article
- Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013
- Exchange Information Disclosure Act (H.R. 3362; 113th Congress)
- Suspending the Individual Mandate Penalty Law Equals Fairness Act (H.R. 4118; 113th Congress) - this passed the House last week
- Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act (H.R. 3979; 113th Congress) - on the floor today
- Hire More Heroes Act of 2013 (H.R. 3474; 113th Congress) - on the floor today
These bills aren't identical attempts to repeal it under different names - they are different bills that address different portions of the ACA. They would exempt some religious groups, allow employers not to count veterans with military health insurance on their list of employees, authorize a delay in the employer mandate and the individual mandate, and so on.
Anyway, I'm asking about it to solicit opinions (instead of editing a rather closely watched article without notice). Any ideas? (And yes, I do realize that some of those bill articles could use improvement...). Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Crickets. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I just met HistoricMN44 at a hackathon, and she mentioned this proposal to me. Given the number of attempts to repeal or revise the ACA and the volume of the debate about them, I think a new sub-article makes perfect sense.—Neil 19:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sub-article seems fine to me on this topic. Likely it will be fine to the many guardians of this article, too, because it doesn't address anything perceived as negative about the ACA. A sub-article is a good elephant graveyard for the information. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note that if this is a POV fork designed to evade scrutiny and to advocate for a different view on the topic. Then it's disallowed. Ging287 (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't intend it as such, no. Roughly 9 or so of the 50+ attempts have actually become law and many have had bipartisan support in the House (with no action taken in the Senate). The various attempts to repeal, reform, or correct small portions of the ACA are a significant part of this country's political history and will be a major issue in the upcoming elections. I think it makes sense to collect information about all the attempts, what they were, and what the different sides had to say about the matter. HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Any title suggestions? I'd like to see something more robust than a simple list. Is Attempts to repeal, reform, or replace the Affordable Care Act too long? Not neutral? Attempted amendments to the Affordable Care Act seems too broad - there are hundreds of bills that make small modifications to the ACA. The major bills do a variety of things - formalize delays in different provisions of the bill, exempt some groups or insurance plans from various requirements, regulate healthcare.gov, and so on, so I'm not sure what a good catch all title would be. Suggestions? Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the relevant issue is the rather large difference between the ACA law as passed by the Peoples' representatives and "ObamaCare", which is the actual law as passed, then redefined by the SCOTUS, implemented with changes by royal decree, a small sub-set of those changes affirmed by the lower body of Congress, virtually none of them affirmed by the upper body yet all of them being imposed upon the people, who apparently have had and will have no say in the matter until this November. Thus I believe any such section should deal with the difference between the law the people were told they were getting and the law that is actually being imposed upon them, which seems to change every week at the whim of a POTUS who obviously feels that he is the only one with any legal authority to change or selectively enforce what we have been told is the "law of the land". Apparently it's his law and his land, not ours. InterpreDemon (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Why not change the article, then? It's an embarrassment how woefully inadequate, incomplete, and out of date it is. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- I gave up on that some time ago... the Obamatons are in charge and edits that bring the article into balance or reality are rarely spawned and almost never survive the masterful weaponization of WP rules and guidelines exhibited by the Left. In the years leading up to the actual implementation the arguments were over the theoretical outcomes (all rosy, of course) but now that the reality is turning out to be quite different and the arbitrary, lawless enforcement behavior of POTUS somewhat embarrassing, the editors have decided to simply freeze the article in it's theoretical ivory time capsule, using their WP expertise to systematically shoot down any and all suggestions that attempt to change the tone or bias of the article. That's how you end up with Michael Moore being accepted as an authoritative source but not Sarah Palin or George Will. Best to just let the article become an ever more perfect example of why WP should never be considered an authoritative and unbiased source for any topic where politics is involved. InterpreDemon (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's still embarrassing. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- I gave up on that some time ago... the Obamatons are in charge and edits that bring the article into balance or reality are rarely spawned and almost never survive the masterful weaponization of WP rules and guidelines exhibited by the Left. In the years leading up to the actual implementation the arguments were over the theoretical outcomes (all rosy, of course) but now that the reality is turning out to be quite different and the arbitrary, lawless enforcement behavior of POTUS somewhat embarrassing, the editors have decided to simply freeze the article in it's theoretical ivory time capsule, using their WP expertise to systematically shoot down any and all suggestions that attempt to change the tone or bias of the article. That's how you end up with Michael Moore being accepted as an authoritative source but not Sarah Palin or George Will. Best to just let the article become an ever more perfect example of why WP should never be considered an authoritative and unbiased source for any topic where politics is involved. InterpreDemon (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Why not change the article, then? It's an embarrassment how woefully inadequate, incomplete, and out of date it is. -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the relevant issue is the rather large difference between the ACA law as passed by the Peoples' representatives and "ObamaCare", which is the actual law as passed, then redefined by the SCOTUS, implemented with changes by royal decree, a small sub-set of those changes affirmed by the lower body of Congress, virtually none of them affirmed by the upper body yet all of them being imposed upon the people, who apparently have had and will have no say in the matter until this November. Thus I believe any such section should deal with the difference between the law the people were told they were getting and the law that is actually being imposed upon them, which seems to change every week at the whim of a POTUS who obviously feels that he is the only one with any legal authority to change or selectively enforce what we have been told is the "law of the land". Apparently it's his law and his land, not ours. InterpreDemon (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I believe the politics section of this article is in violation of the "neutral point of view" rule. I would argue that none of the political information is relevant and makes the article subjective instead of objective. Counter arguments need to be offered, or proof from the ACA legal documents to disprove the claims in question. I would propose that the section be removed because it will simply be a point of contention. Quoting other articles that call Sarah Palin a liar isn't objective information it is exactly the opposite. 98.23.105.220 (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC) LW
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Not "good"
The article is out-of date. It does not address the numerous delays (for large employers and union plans) and ongoing serious issues in implementation. [1] It does not address recent court cases.[2]
The article is not NPOV. I have spent my career writing summaries of legislation for courts (which require NPOV) and I find that the "cheerleading" comment above is valid shorthand for the tone of the article, and not "uncivil" at all.
I will try to return to work through this piece-by-piece, but it is a huge undertaking.
Avocats (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
References
Inside story on implementation
I stumbled across this really fine piece of journalism that describes the true story of what happened during the implementation of healthcare.gov. For whoever wants to take this on, it ought to be cited here as well.
- Goldstein, Amy; Eilperin, Juliet (November 2, 2013). "HealthCare.gov: How political fear was pitted against technical needs". The Washington Post.
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Stumbled across? But up until last December you edited this page over 2000 times as if it was a full time job. Then proudly proclaimed you were finished, coincidently as of the end of 2013.
Jonathan Gruber's "Stupid Americans" controversy
People are already forgetting that Jonathan Gruber's gaffe isn't just what he thinks about the American people, he has also exposed the fraudulent mechanisms behind what lead to the passage of the PPACA in the first place.
In other words, Jonathan Gruber did not just come on camera, say the four words "American voters are stupid", and then go back home. He has said on numerous videos that the lies and trickery that was required to get the PPACA (aka Obamacare) past the American voters, is what makes the American voter stupid.
If that cannot make it into the PPACA's content, considering how important Jonathan Gruber was/is to PPACA, then there is a violation of NPOV somewhere. Everybody is trying to distance themselves from Gruber now, but a few years ago his role was not in doubt.
Just the CBO sections alone need a wholesale re-write, to take into consideration the lies and trickery.
The entire page is a violation of NPOV. It is bought, paid for and monitored for the purposes of promoting the subject material.
- Wikipedia good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Old requests for peer review
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- GA-Class Economics articles
- Mid-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles
- GA-Class Health and fitness articles
- Mid-importance Health and fitness articles
- WikiProject Health and fitness articles
- GA-Class law articles
- Mid-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- GA-Class medicine articles
- High-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of High-importance
- GA-Class United States Government articles
- High-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed United States Government articles
- Unknown-importance United States Government articles
- GA-Class U.S. Congress articles
- Mid-importance U.S. Congress articles
- WikiProject U.S. Congress things
- Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates